I know I said I'm done for the night, but did want to address this one point and let you sleep on it.

I am of the impression that because Dr. Manuel seemed to think there was a problem with the neutrino count that others here (mostly those involved in the discussion) seem to think this one issue is a "big deal". I agree that it is a "big deal" that from a gas model perspective in that it does "seem" to lend greater support to the model. I willingly accept this as fact.

What you are doing however is not scientifically sound IMO. You are trying to exclude my model for not making predictions on this one issue. That is no better than trying to exclude the gas model prior to it finding an answer to the problem. There is no one issue that makes or breaks a model IMO.

I did spend months putting together a complete explanation for many solar phenomeon that remain elusive to gas model theories. For instance, while magnetic flux tubes might be demonstrated in plasma, they are scales of energy too small to account for a "magnetic flux rope" that lights up iron to millions of degrees. If you want to resolve the next crisis issue for the gas model, I suspect this issue is going to be it.

Now I can understand your reluctance to accept these ideas Dwayne. I was reluctant myself at first. I would be shocked if you agreed with me today or tomorrow or even next week. Given enough time I'm sure that all your questions can and will be answered, but not by any single individual. This individual can answer many things about the sun that are not answered by the gas model as well. There will always be relevance to any new idea, even if there are some aspects that are yet to be explained by the model.

I do realize I'm the "underdog" in this discussion, but a lot of scientific breakthroughs are made by underdogs and amateurs. I didn't technically even make this particular breakthrough IMO, Birkeland did it 100 years ago. I can also cite many things from Dr. Bruce's work that show a very close relationship between the atmospheric phemonomen and electrical discharges and I can cite the work of Dr. Manuel to support the composition aspects.

I believe that you are being premature in dismissing any model over a "percieved" issue or two. The fact the gas model has enjoyed greater research money through the years and has found support for the gas model along the way is not evidence it is right, or that my model is wrong. Surely as a scientist you realize this?

So explain how a 6000K degree surface emits million degree photons again. Why is the light concentrated in the arcs in raw 171A images?

As part of the transition to the new BAUT rules, esp those which apply to Alternative Concepts, this thread is being moved to the Question and Answers section.

Why? Because, per the OP*, this thread is about baryogenesis and the Big Bang, which is the class of cosmological theories most widely used in the mainstream.

A different rule for discussion has operated for most of the time from when this thread was started until now, and much of the thread content has become a discussion of Michael Mozina's idea (Sun is Mostly Iron, not Hydrogen).

Let us continue discussion of Michael's ATM idea in the ATM thread, and focus here on the creation of iron, in the Big Bang.

Of course, there are other, alternative cosmologies; to explore how Fe is created (or if it is eternal) in those, please refer to the specific ATM thread discussing those ideas, such as Static Universe, Mosheh Thezion's cosmology, Universe collapse, cold creation, Uniform expansion theory, and electric universe (this has several threads, to be consolidated).

*

you're misinterpreting. again.

the neutrino count is an example of something predicted by the mainstream model but not by yours. however, I, personally, haven't seen a single prediction of any kind made by your "model." (if anyone else has, please, correct me. in fact, Michael, correct me, too--with a quantitative prediction that your "model" has made that has been verified.) it seems to me that your version is long on speculation and interpretation, but short on actual prediction.

however, in order to surpass the mainstream model, yours must predict more than it does. if instead the mainstream model predicts more than yours, yours is by definition wrong. now, if you can predict everything people keep asking you to, or someone using the same model as you can, well, you'll convince me. but I haven't seen anything from you but assertions that your model predicts things without any evidence that it actually does.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Going back to the big slam thing, I'm wondering why Michael thinks that matter could never have been so close together. He mentions galaxy collision but they are a different thing. The big bang is baiscally extrapolating the Robertson Walker Metric to a scale factor of zero. It has little to do with colliding galaxies in the current universe.

__________________
Its better tae meddle wi the deil............

Did i mention that i don't believe in a hydrogen /helium beginning?

i know i have elsewhere, anyway... yes.. i don't agree with big bang generally.

i did say "generally.". i believe in a big bang, alright, but it was the explosion of an original massive mass at the center of a non-expanding space.

"so this is on topic", since i would not support a hydrogen/helium beginning..
and the reason is neutron stars, and dwarfs...

which prove clearly.. that matter is not limited to existance as mearly protons and nuetrons.. but clearly can exist in nucleon form, as planet size bodies.

bodies which if broke down could then form all the known elements..

hydrogen being the most abundant.. since it is the smallest, and is what most of the bigger stuff break down into..

so along that line Michael Mozina: what do you think?
-MT

Folks, I've moved this thread from the ATM section, to the Q&A section.

Please limit your contributions, from now on, here, to a discussion of why, in big bang cosmology models, there was no Fe at the time of the CMBR (the 'surface of last scattering').

Specifically, MT, if you wish to discuss Michael's ideas concerning a 'big slam', please start a thread in the ATM section on that topic (the two current threads are about his 'sun has a solid iron/ferrite surface' and 'mass cannot be accurately determined by GR or Newtonian gravity' ideas.

As it's not yet 1 October, this is not a warning.

hummm.. to be honest,,, to be sure what this thread was clearly about.. i went to the first page and read the first post...

and that post was then a response... im sorry if the topic changed since then.
-MT

Although I posted the link in #243, earlier in this thread, I should have quoted an extract: So yes, the nature of this thread has changed.

I apologise for any confusion caused by the changes ... a tranistion (first the merger, now the new rules) may indeed result in some confusion.

Oh well.

The "assumption" it should be scaled to a factor of zero is arbitrary. The fact it is "assumed" to have ever scaled to zero is the issue here, not the formula. Why was that assumption made? If it never scaled to zero to begin with, then you have no way to know that hydrogen was ever the most abundant element in those dust clouds.

If you read the PDF file on my website, I make a bunch of them at the end.

Read the paper and then lets talk. I simply am pointing out in this thread that the "assumption" that the element of hydrogen was always the most abundant element in the universe relates back to the Big Bang theory, which itself is very questionable. For hydrogen to be the most abundant element, we are assuming that all energy was subatomic at some "point" in "time". That is an assumption that has never been established to have been the condition at the moment of the BB. If it was more of a "slam" event, there is no way to know how much energy was matter and how much was subatomic.

I think you are probably right about that, but I can't do it all by myself. I'll need help and the effort of others. That is why I'm here talking about it.

That is a false statement. If the mainstream model predicts more, it should be right more often. It's wrong a lot too as the newest Spitzer data demonstrates. Predictions aren't the be all, end all of being right or wrong.

You may have the right to suggest the gas model makes more predictions because it's more "mature" than my model, but then you still need to explain why some of the predictions have been scale of factors off in the past and why we have all the surprises ever year or two about when galaxies first formed?

I'll make one more prediction for you then. I predict that this model will be taken a lot more seriously when the next round of solar satellites go into space and start returning images. When we go to megapixel resolutions, there will be plenty of evidence to demonstrate that everything I am saying is true. Well, most of it anyway.

The 'scaling', as you call it, is not an 'assumption'.

The basis of the big bang theories is really very simple; it's nothing more than the assumption that the physics which has been so exhaustively tested in the lab also applies to the universe as a whole.

Specifically, General Relativity (GR), and the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.

Of course, these assumptions - GR and the SM work in the universe at large - require testing, by observations. So far, things are working out pretty well, considering that the physics has only been tested - via experiments - in an utterly trivial fraction of the total universe (the most accurate part of the most thoroughly tested theory - QED - is accurate to no more than our star in the stars in the local group, or our galaxy in the galaxies in the visible universe; probably a lot less).

So, if you don't like the idea of the big bang, and you want something 'better', you will almost certainly have to throw out GR, quantum theory (or both), or modify either - or each - significantly.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Fe (and all elements heavier than Li) were created 'well after' H, He, and Li were.

Michael,

This thread is now part of BAUT's Questions and Answers section.

You may not, per Rules For Posting To This Board, use this thread to promote your ideas here. We have a thread in the ATM section for that purpose.

This is not a warning (though, as it's already 1 October in some parts of the world, probably the last time I will be able to write this).

Just because they exist doesn't mean they behave the way your hypothesis claims.

I can prove that bumblebees exist but it doesn't logically follow that they also sip champagne and recite poetry when no one is looking. I'd have to catch one doing that to prove it.

Neutron stars form because of the physical properties of mass and what happens when you get too much of it together in one place. It gets smushed. It doesn't expand into a galaxy later.

__________________
My son is my universe.

I think it has to be an assumption since none of us were there. We can know that the trajectories of galaxies suggest a "concentration" of energy, but we cannot assume this concentration of energy began with all subatomic energy from a point.

Even when we smash things together in a lab under pristine and controlled conditions, we never (to my knowledge) destroy the whole "target". We simply cannot know that all energy was once subatomic in nature even though the theory might work.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/spa...age/index.html
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html

But recent evidence suggests a growing skism between gas model predictions about solar and galactic formation theories and real world observation. In satellite observations of the early universe, iron is not in short supply. In some cases it is more abundant in iron than our own sun, a star which formed some 7+ billion years later. I would say that the notion that all energy was once subatomic in nature cannot now be supported by modern satellite images. It can certainly be said that the belief that all the energy of our universe was once subatomic is a theory that has yet to be proven.

Neutron stars exploding into galaxies???? what???
are we talking about the same neutron stars??
-MT

Bamm.... its like a slap in the face...

not for me though...
to repost Michaels link....
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/spa...age/index.html

this link leads to CNN.. and a article that suggest the universe is much older than presumed, and more ...

at 13.5 billion years ago.. a quasar is shinning and it says hea.. look at me..
i have 3 times the iron % than the modern earth system..

fascinating... and yet i am not suprised..

as you know my opinion of Fusion.
-MT